Negative feedbacks and limitation period of accounts tradings

[Veleor]

I think that Default Trust members must reach a common understanding in the question of tagging for accounts tradings and the statutes of limitations for this type of action.

Sometimes accounts dealers have been forgiven and in other cases members got negative feedbacks for the same thing.


More concretely, DT1 member The Pharmacist said that he is not tagging users for accounts tradings which occured before 2016:

<...> As a preemptive answer, he apparently bought the account before account selling became a sin around here, and I'm definitely not going to give him a neg for it.  Nor am I going to remove him from my trust list for that or for the plagiarism, which he (the current owner) likely didn't do.

<...> That was 2015, dude.  The account buying problem was nowhere near as bad as it has since become, and account dealers didn't start getting tagged until 2016. 

But on the other hand, DT2 member Lauda wrote that s/he doesn't care in what year trading actually was:

I don't care what year it was when you come at me with bullshit in order to create a false defense for your past actions. This is a play out of the CH-book, and I won't let it slip. If anyone counters, I'll counter the counter: Say no to account dealers. To make matters worse, it was bought primarily for shitposting which he has been doing. No thanks.

In my opinion, DT members should agree among themselves on this matter to prevent controversial situations.

[YOSHIE]

In my opinion, DT members should agree among themselves on this matter to prevent controversial situations.

I'm not sure this will have good results.
if, ego, emotions, arrogance, power, revenge, want to win alone, do not want to budge, still control every human being.

Many cases that occur DT vs DT until now there is also no meeting point, accusing the main factor, wanting to win and in power.

So, how to agree in one agreement.
I think only 20% agree and 80% disagree.

I actually think that this rule needs to be emphasized.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

Why it is not said here.

"have multiple accounts and selling accounts is prohibited in the Forum".

In my opinion, let DT do what he does, mark or not.

[Little Mouse]

"have multiple accounts and selling accounts is prohibited in the Forum".

It's not possible to prohibit it in reality. That was made clear why it's not banned-

Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?
A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales on other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.

Having multiple accounts have no problem as long as they are known, but if they are unknown, theymos will not know if they are using TOR. So, it's not easy to prevent.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think your heart is the right place, but I don't think having all DT members agree on these kind of issues is possible or even desirable.

If some DT members are going to tag accounts for historic reasons, that's their prerogative. Similarly, if some other DT members aren't going to tag accounts for historic reasons, that's up to them too. If the community at large or DT1 members disagree with a DT member's actions, then that user will get voted off or excluded.

If every case was as simple as saying "This deserves red trust, while that does not" with no gray area, there would be no need for the default trust system at all. theymos could simply appoint a team of trust moderators to hand out ratings with no oversight or recourse.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

In my opinion, DT members should agree among themselves on this matter to prevent controversial situations.

This isn't happening anything soon, the diversity between the dt members is what makes the system interesting and less centralized. If this was to be the case then the system won't be as decentralized (to some extent as theymos had intended).  I'll go with @ThePharmacist reasoning on this as farming of account (back when it was still ok to do so), was mainly done for one reason, which was to join a signature campaign but currently, farming of accounts are done for various untrustworthy reasons which includes; farming trust, farming merit, scamming and obviously cheating signature campaigns.

When you consider this recent development toward account farming, you'll understand why there's an unwritten rule towards discouraging it. Using your common sense, If a new rule is passed, you don't go punishing old offenders that commited that offense when it was not yet a crime.

[The Cryptovator]

In my opinion, DT members should agree among themselves on this matter to prevent controversial situations.

All DT member's opinion could not be same, and feedback's are not moderated by DT community. Someone even not agree to tag account sellers, so what can we do? On the other hand all cases judgment wouldn't be typical. Sometimes I am tagging account sellers but it doesn't mean I should tag all of them. I might have my own judgment strategy and perhaps other DT wouldn't like my judgment. So I don't think we can come conclusion about tag account seller.

Why it is not said here.

"have multiple accounts and selling accounts is prohibited in the Forum".

Because it's not possible prevent create multiple accounts if there is no KYC. And theymos will not do it ever. Users might create multiple accounts by VPN or whatever.

[LoyceMobile]

You'll never get 500 people with different cultural backgrounds and different reasons for being here to all agree on anything.

What you can (and should) do, is create your own personal Trust list with all the users who's judgement you trust.

[Findingnemo]

Why it is not said here.

"have multiple accounts and selling accounts is prohibited in the Forum".

People might have multiple accounts for various reasons,so it is allowed and its even allowed to participate with both accounts on different bounties at the same time,only thing is not allowed abusing a bounty with multiple alts.

Stealing someone's work from the past by just giving your money will never be encouraged anywhere so same applies to the account sales also.

[Veleor]

You'll never get 500 people with different cultural backgrounds and different reasons for being here to all agree on anything.

What you can (and should) do, is create your own personal Trust list with all the users who's judgement you trust.

In Reputation section disputes are constantly taking place about the sent trusts.
A negative mark of Default Trust members is a clear indication that it's risky to make deals with a tagged user.
Members that have been tagged by DT's are even shown with negative marks on bpip.org and loyce.club websites.
So, even if a negative-tagged member creates own trust list, the vast majority of Bitcointalk users will still see such member as an 'untrustworthy person'.
Therefore, I believe that DT's, especially those who registered on the forum more than five years ago, need to agree among themselves on whether there should be a limitation period or not.
I believe this is not such an "overwhelming task" for 100 people to reach the best solution.

[madnessteat]

I fully support Veleor's idea. We all have to define the starting point when it was customary to leave negative feedback to account sellers.

I have a very negative attitude towards selling and buying accounts. In my opinion, all account sellers should be painted regardless of how long the account has been hibernated.  There is a possibility that any dormant account can be sold at any time.

I also believe that in some cases negative feedback should be left to users who are interested in buying accounts and are asked to write prices in PM.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

DT members never have and likely never will agree on certain issues--in fact, I'm certain of that.  Not everyone agrees that account dealers ought to be tagged, much less about the timeframe.  Lauda generally takes a very harsh stance on a lot of issues and while I can respect that, I tend to be more forgiving.  In fact I've removed a lot of negs I've left for account buying or selling since I started tagging accounts in 2016.  People can change their ways and some do deserve second chances.

Where is Lauda, anyway?  I haven't seen him/her post in quite some time (though I haven't checked any post history, either).  I'm not so sure he/she/it/we/you/they is actively tagging account sellers anymore, so it could be a moot point.  I haven't been, either, though I did tag one or two recently after they were brought to light.

Anyway, it helps to have a diversity of opinions--not only within DT but on the forum as a whole.  As far as DT is concerned, if everyone agreed on everything it'd be very hard to keep it clean and free from abuse.

[khaled0111]

If DTs are going to agree on everything then why do we have to vote for them in first place!!
If you think The Pharmacist judgement is wrong then simply ~him. The same things applies to Lauda.

Incentivize everyone to customize their trust lists would solve partially such issues.

But regarding this particular issue, it would be better if theymos updates the rules and clearly states that selling/buying accounts is not allowed anymore.

[hugeblack]

It is better to be a case by case and the judgment will be the entire forum on this matter.
Rules do not apply retroactively, we cannot apply the same rules to the topics from 2015.
If you ask me, I’m against selling accounts based on trust, not only this forum but for sites such as Localbitcoin, Paxful and others.

[Theb]

The thing is a DT member can come up with his own opinion on how s/he issues his negative feedback to someone, it would be good if some DT members views the situation the same way but there won't really be anything bad if they don't share the same opinion on the matter. Their power to paint red and green on to anyone's account is still their own decision on how he sees the rules and if it applies on the situation. I've seen this in a lot of cases mostly related to alt accounts being connected through a wallet and they still have varying opinions on whether or not those accounts are worthy of their own red tag. After all the trust system isn't moderated and the power of the DT is given by other members trusting that person in the forum there is really no rule about them coming up on an agreement on how they would tag a person based on any given situation.

[Coin-1]

In my opinion, DT members should agree among themselves on this matter to prevent controversial situations.

I think such controversial situations are inevitable. In fact, most people do not approve of account sales because as a rule, the forum profile should reflect the relevant experience, knowledge and reputation of a user. Some DT members have their own opinions on limitation period and are likely to stand up for the principles they adhere to.

I have a very negative attitude towards selling and buying accounts. In my opinion, all account sellers should be painted regardless of how long the account has been hibernated.  There is a possibility that any dormant account can be sold at any time.

As far as I understand, Veleor is saying about accounts which have been sold or bought in 2015 or earlier, and not about dormant account that can be sold in present days.

I also believe that in some cases negative feedback should be left to users who are interested in buying accounts and are asked to write prices in PM.

I agree with you. Users who publicly try to sell or buy accounts should be red tagged.